Copy article

Debt collection reforms announced

ended 09. June 2025

The Govenment has announced that it is reforming debt enforcement by reducing the number of “doorstep visits” and doubling the minimum notice period given before enforcement officers visit those in debt from seven to 14 days. You can read the release here. Newspage asked what the effect of softer enforcement would lead to.

4 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Kundan Bhaduri
Entrepreneur, Investor and Landlord at The Kushman Group
Reducing bailiff visits and doubling notice periods to 14 days might play well with the focus group crowd, but in the real world this is a gift-wrapped incentive for debt evasion. As a property developer and landlord, I will tell you these delays in enforcement aren’t acts of compassion. They’re invitations to financial recklessness. With UK household debt topping £1.8 trillion, softening collection only shifts the cost onto those who actually pay their bills. It’s classic Westminster and classic Labour. Punish fiscal responsibility to protect political optics. Ask any creditor whether giving debtors more time just means more cars mysteriously vanish from driveways, more tenants “between jobs”, and more unpaid liabilities passed up the chain. We used to call that bad economics; now it’s called policy reform. Thank you Starmer. When did enforcing basic obligations become unfashionable?
Copy

Editor
Rob Peters
Principal at Simple Fast Mortgage
This is a compassionate step, particularly as many households are struggling with the cost of living. Giving people more time before enforcement officers arrive may help them seek support or resolve debts without escalation. This approach could actually reduce long-term problem debt by encouraging earlier engagement rather than pushing people into hiding. In the wider economy, it promotes financial rehabilitation rather than aggressive punishment, which is good for everyone. However, it must be balanced carefully. If enforcement becomes too soft, it risks emboldening serial non-payers, which in turn could increase the cost of credit or delay repayment for businesses.
Copy

Editor
Tony Redondo
Founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange
We are very likely to look back and feel these debt collection reforms have swung the pendulum too far in favour of the debtor. Like the new rules governing the private rental property sector, these reforms may be well-meaning, but the law of unintended consequences is bound to strike. In reducing bailiff visits and extending notice periods from 7 to 14 days or 28 days with advisor approval, the economic impact will include slower debt recovery, tightening credit, and risking SME insolvencies. Softer enforcement risks moral hazard, especially among young borrowers. Extended notice periods could encourage reckless spending. If we are going to grow our economy, we must get away from these simplistic ‘lenders/landlords are bad; borrowers and tenants are good’. There needs to be a balance between debtor protection and creditor needs.
Copy

Patricia McGirr
Founder at Repossession Rescue Network
Delaying debt enforcement might sound compassionate and sensible, but it’s just a slower route to the same train wreck. Debt doesn’t disappear with time. It multiplies. People aren’t avoiding help because they’re careless; they’re paralysed by fear, shame and the crushing belief they’ve failed. That stigma is weaponised by a system that profits from penury. The real scandal isn’t how many people are in debt. It’s how few viable ways out they have. We need lenders, credit card companies and banks at the table, offering lower interest, honest debt consolidation and insolvency support people can actually afford. Until that happens, extending notice periods is keeping the clock ticking on a financial time-bomb. Reducing humiliating door-step visits will be a relief to many people whose mental health is already in tatters, but this isn’t reform. It’s window dressing in a crisis. People deserve better than that.